Guest Post by Bob Tisdale
This is the second part of a two-part series of posts that present chapters from my recently published ebook On Global Warming and the Illusion of Control – Part 1. The introductory post for the book is here (WattsUpWithThat cross post is here), and the book in pdf format is here (25 MB). Yes, the book is free.
The topic of the first post was What is Global Warming? For this second post, the topic is…
1.5 – What is Climate Change?
Climate change has two definitions, according to United Nation entities…not one, but two definitions. The IPCC Third Assessment Report defines climate change in their Appendix 1 – Glossary (My boldface.):
Climate change refers to a statistically significant variation in either the mean state of the climate or in its variability, persisting for an extended period (typically decades or longer). Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings, or to persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use.
According to the IPCC, climate change can occur naturally or from man-made causes.
That IPCC definition, however, goes on to read:
Note that the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), in its Article 1, defines “climate change” as: “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods”. The UNFCCC thus makes a distinction between “climate change” attributable to human activities altering the atmospheric composition, and “climate variability” attributable to natural causes.
The fact that there are two definitions is troubling because a person has to understand that there are multiple definitions of climate change when they are reading United Nations documents and their offspring.
It’s also interesting that the UNFCCC (a United Nations policy) definition of climate change does not agree the IPCC (the United Nation’s climate change report-writing entity) definition. To that end, we’ll refer to a statement by Roger Pielke, Jr., from his book The Climate Fix: What Scientists and Politicians Won’t Tell You About Global Warming. Roger Pielke, Jr., is a Professor in the Environmental Studies Program at the University of Colorado and a Fellow of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES). Pielke, Jr., writes:
The IPCC adopts a broader definition of “climate change” that is more scientifically accurate. Claims that climate policy should be based on the work of the IPCC typically fail to recognize that the policy community has rejected the most fundamental statement of the IPCC on the issue – the very definition of “climate change”.
See the Google Preview of The Climate Fix here.
That’s an interesting realization, that the United Nations politicians don’t accept the broader scientific definition of climate change. The politicians created their own term for natural climate change: “climate variability”. It could be that the politicians wanted two separate terms to avoid confusion.
In the minds of most people, however, “climate change”, like “global warming”, has morphed into a term that implies man is responsible for the changes. In fact, the publication of the U.S. National Climate Assessment Report in May 2014 prompted Dr. Judith Curry (Professor and Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology) to write at her blog ClimateEtc. (Her boldface.):
My main conclusion from reading the report is this: the phrase ‘climate change’ is now officially meaningless. The report effectively implies that there is no climate change other than what is caused by humans, and that extreme weather events are equivalent to climate change. Any increase in adverse impacts from extreme weather events or sea level rise is caused by humans. Possible scenarios of future climate change depend only on emissions scenarios that are translated into warming by climate models that produce far more warming than has recently been observed.
And Dr. Curry began the closing of her post (My brackets.):
While there is some useful analysis in the report, it is hidden behind a false premise that any change in the 20th century has been caused by AGW [anthropogenic global warming].
When we look at the commonly accepted definition of climate, we can understand the fallacy behind the premise that all changes in climate are now caused by mankind.
On their Frequently Asked Questions webpage, the World Meteorological Organization asks and answers:
What is Climate?
Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the “average weather,” or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. The classical period is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). These quantities are most often surface variables such as temperature, precipitation, and wind. Climate in a wider sense is the state, including a statistical description, of the climate system.
“Average weather” is a wonderful definition of climate. We know that weather is chaotic and that weather is always changing and has always changed…and will continue to change in the future. Therefore, climate is always changing and has always changed…and will continue to change in the future.
By blaming all changes in weather on mankind, reports like the U.S. National Climate Assessment Report imply that extreme weather can be minimized by eliminating our emissions of man-made greenhouse gases—providing a false hope to naïve persons of a future without hurricanes and tropical cyclones, without tornados, without blizzards, without droughts, without floods. They further suggest to those trusting souls that all we have to do to make weather nonthreatening on our planet is drive efficient cars, install solar panels on our roofs and install wind farms everywhere. That suggestion is not only misleading, it’s foolish. Weather has always changed, and it will continue to change in the future. Because climate is average weather, climate has always and will always change.
Further, climate scientists must rely on computer models to predict how climate and weather might change in the future in response to the increased emissions of man-made greenhouse gases. And that raises the question: Are climate models capable of simulating the factors that are of interest to people and policymakers? The realistic answer is no…as you have already seen and will continue to see throughout this book. Climate models will be of value only after they are capable of simulating the natural factors that can contribute to or suppress man-made global warming and that cause climate to change. And climate modelers are nowhere close to being able to simulate those factors.
Like greenhouse gases and global warming, when the term climate change is used, everyone now assumes the human-induced variety is being discussed…when, in fact, the speaker or author might be referring to naturally caused variations in climate. This problem was recently presented in the testimony of Dr. Daniel B. Botkin (Professor Emeritus from the University of California Santa Barbara) at a hearing for the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology (May 29, 2014). The subject of the hearing was Examining the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Process. If you were to read Dr. Botkin’s environmental background (See his webpage here.), you’d be convinced his testimony would be full of praise for the IPCC. Surprisingly, that was not the case. See his written statement here. About the use of the term climate change in the recent IPCC report, Dr. Botkin wrote:
The reports suffers [sic] from the use term “climate change” with two meanings: natural and human-induced. These are both given as definitions in the IPCC report and are not distinguished in the text and therefore confuse a reader. (The Climate Change Assessment uses the term throughout including its title, but never defines it.) There are places in the reports where only the second meaning—human induced—makes sense, so that meaning has to be assumed. There are other places where either meaning could be applied.
In those places where either meaning can be interpreted, if the statement is assumed to be a natural change, then it is a truism, a basic characteristic of Earth’s environment and something people have always know and experienced. If the meaning is taken to be human-caused, then in spite of the assertions in the report, the available data do not support the statements.
Dr. Botkin’s statement is chock full of similar realities about the IPCC reports. Please take the time to read it. Another link to his written statement is here.
Figure 1.5-1 is a screen capture of the four photos at the top of the NOAA Climate variability webpage. (Archived here.) They show a thunderstorm, strong waves eroding a beach, a wildfire, and a pickup truck on a highway partly submerged by a flood.
But is NOAA presenting those illustrations in a discussion of naturally caused or anthropogenically caused weather events?
In recent years, we’ve seen similar photographs used repeatedly by climate change alarmists as misleading “proof” of anthropogenic climate change, yet the images in Figure 1.5-1 weren’t used in a discussion of man-made global warming. They were included in a discussion of weather, specifically El Niño-Southern Oscillation (a.k.a. ENSO, El Niño and La Niña events), the largest weather events on Earth. NOAA/CPC provides an excellent overview of natural climate variability/change on that webpage. The text on that NOAA webpage reads (my boldface):
One of the most prominent aspects of our weather and climate is its variability. This variability ranges over many time and space scales, from small-scale phenomena such as wind gusts, localized thunderstorms and tornadoes, to larger-scale features such as fronts and storms, to even more prolonged features such as droughts and floods, and to fluctuations occurring on multi-seasonal, multi-year, multi-decade and even multi-century time scales. Some examples of these longer time-scale fluctuations include an abnormally hot and dry summer, an abnormally cold and snowy winter, a consecutive series of abnormally mild or exceptionally severe winters, and even a mild winter followed by a severe winter. In general, the longer time-scale phenomena are often associated with changes in the atmospheric circulation that encompass areas far larger than a particular affected region. At times, these persistent circulation features occur simultaneously over vast, and seemingly unrelated, parts of the hemisphere, or even the globe, and result in abnormal weather, temperature and rainfall patterns throughout the world. During the past several decades, scientists have discovered that important aspects of this interannual variability in global weather patterns are linked to a global-scale, naturally occurring phenomenon known as the El Niño/ Southern Oscillation (ENSO) cycle. The terms El Niño and La Niña represent opposite extremes of the ENSO cycle.
Once again, be careful when you read the phrase climate change, or see photos of weather events. Are the authors discussing naturally caused weather or climate change or anthropogenically caused?
CHAPTER CLOSING
Were you aware that the IPCC and other government agencies used climate change for both natural and human-induced variability…often without identifying which they’re discussing? Did you assume they were discussing the man-made type, when in fact they may have been referring to natural variability?
Some persons might believe the IPCC and other governmental agencies are purposely being vague, with hope that most readers will assume they’re discussing the man-made kind, when in reality those scientists still can’t differentiate between natural and anthropogenic climate change.
1) Anthropogenic CO2 is trivial in the overall global C/CO2 balance.
2) The 2 W/m^2 (watt is power not energy) RF of CO2 is trivial in the overall global heat balance.
3) The GCMs don’t work, did not model the pause, and IPCC AR5 admits as much.
Stay on target, Luke!
Don’t wake him up, he always side-tracks the thread.
(ref. Luke)
It is appropriate that you opened the posting with a conflict in definitions. In keeping with the subtitle of your book, “…the Illusion of Control…” we are not deluded into believing that we can control climate as defined by science. It is conceivable that since the IPCC defines CC as human behavior, and they believe that human behavior can be controlled, they then conclude that CC can be controlled.
Words matter. The IPCC want to control humanity. We want to engage in science. We are communicating in different languages and debating 2 different issues. Science VS Socialism IMO.
I like this wedge. I would like to conjure an effective way to use this new specific knowledge. BTW, I like your work. It is very readable and always on point.
Bob, is there any chance of making these chapters into a video series on Youtube?
I think it would reach more of the young and less educated that way.
“statistically significant variation in either the mean state of the climate or in its variability,”
OK, our sample contains one climate. How many of those have to see a change for it to be statistically significant?
OK, We see a sudden change in temperature. What is the statistics of that happening? Let me then say it just rained – now what’s the chance of it happening? Now let me tell you a large volcano erupted, a comet hit the earth, sunspots affect the climate, now what’s the chance these will happen?
Now I tell you I’ve got one century of data and it shows warming of 0.1C. Now tell me whether that one data is abnormal or not? Can’t say? That’s the right answer!
” a future without hurricanes and tropical cyclones, without tornados, without blizzards, without droughts, without floods. They further suggest to those trusting souls that all we have to do to make weather nonthreatening on our planet is drive efficient cars, install solar panels on our roofs and install wind farms everywhere. That suggestion is not only misleading, it’s foolish.” That suggestion is not only misleading and foolish, it has also never been made. Prove me wrong – find the claim that driving efficient cars will stop hurricanes. This is a straw man.
if I may so bold as to suggest an alternate to the offending sentence, Bob;
“Many of those trusting souls are led by these claims to believe that all we have to do to make weather nonthreatening on our planet is drive efficient cars, install solar panels on our roofs and install wind farms everywhere.”
It’s called hyperbole and most everyone understands what he meant by using it.
seaice says: “That suggestion is not only misleading and foolish, it has also never been made. Prove me wrong – find the claim that driving efficient cars will stop hurricanes. This is a straw man.”
I never said that anyone CLAIMED “that driving efficient cars will stop hurricanes”. I used the word SUGGEST. Do you recall back in 2013, less than a year after Sandy, when Kerry Emanuel published a paper stating that hurricanes could be stronger and MORE FREQUENT due to global warming? Here’s a Time article to refresh your memory:
http://science.time.com/2013/07/09/a-new-study-says-hurricanes-will-get-stronger-and-more-frequent-thanks-to-climate-change/
Even if some people have suggested that global warming could increase the strength and frequency of hurricanes, that is a very far cry from saying preventing global warming could stop hurricanes. Pretty mucgh everyone accepts that theyu will carry on as before. The scientists are equivocal – the effect on frequency is uncertain and there is a likely effect to increase the maximum strength of the strongest storms and possibly an increase in the latitude they will travel to.
From your link “But there was one hopeful side effect to climate change, at least when it came to tropical storms. The prevailing scientific opinion—seen in this 2012 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—is that while tropical storms are likely to become more powerful and rainier as the climate warms, they would also become less common. Bigger bullets, slower gun…Emanuel is going up against the conventional wisdom and much of the published literature with this paper. But the reality is that we don’t have a very good grasp of how tropical cyclone formation or strength might change in the future.”
See – conventional wisdom according to your link is that there will be a reduction in frequency . One paper suggest otherwise, but really we do not know enough to say. The scientists are honest about this. True, some politicians and journalists mis-represent the picture for dramatic effect, but after all, that is exactly what you have done here.
Don’t wake me up. Sheesh. Let’s strike at the foundation.
IPCC AR5 and other typical balances have about 45,000 Gt of C in stores and a couple hundred Gts in fluxes. The listed uncertainty in the stores is +/- 1,000 Gt, fluxes in +/- 10s, yet they claim to know with great certainty that the 4 Gt, yes 4, increase between 1750 and 2011 was due entirely to anthropogenic sources.
The anthro was partitioned 57/43, a total fabrication, dry labbed, to make 43% of anthropogenic match the 1750 to 2011 increase. There is no scientific basis for this partition. The 57% partition side also requires a net sink that did not exist before. What’s the scientific basis for that?
Sorry, Nicholas, I was referring to the commenter Luke. I just did what I yell at my wife for: overuse pronouns.
Double crow pie for me, thanks.
According to [1] the natural centennial global temperature variability is 0.98 +/- 0.27 degree Celsius/century. Compare this to NASA’s statement that the global temperature rise since the end of the Little Ice Age has been about 0.8 degree Celsius (no error is given) [2]. It is obvious then that the observed “warming” falls entirely within the bounds of the natural centennial variability. There is therefore no “global warming” or “climate change” in excess of the expected natural climate variability. It would be abnormal if the earth has not warmed by 0.8 degree Celsius since 1880.
[1] doi:10.1260/0958-305X.26.3.417
[2] http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/28/
Science is about precise definitions with only one clear and delimited meaning. Politics on the contrary likes confusing meanings and imprecision and is full of phrases without meaning. Within climate change, the scientific language has transformed into political language.
The discussion is badly polluted by the Taversky and Kahneman (1983) phenomena. There, the proposition is given that a hypothetical woman Linda, in her twenties, studied the history of women’s sufferage in college. Now in her thirties, which is more likely? (a) Linda is – 1- a bank teller or (b) Linda is -1- a bank teller AND -2- who is enthusiastic about the women’s rights movement.
It’s like asking whether it’s more likely that (a) Linda rolled a nine with two dice or (b) that Linda -1- rolled a nine with two dice AND -2- drew a spade from a shuffled standard deck of cards.
Even though any given proposition becomes less and less likely the more and more conditions attached, the climate alarm industry proposes that we accept the likelihood that
1- meteorologist can precisely and meaningfully measure air temperatures
2- statistics can aggregate these measurements into meaningful summaries
3- the summaries indicate warming
4- human industry is responsible for most of the warming
5- CO2 is the human industrial component most responsible for most of the warming
6- CO2 can be managed using newer, other technologies
7- Newer other technologies are no more expensive than older proven technologies
8- Political agreements can encourage or enforce the use of new technologies.
9- “Business as usual”, however, will NOT develop or use new technologies regardless of costs
etc, etc, for another six or eight propositions, of which some, are, admittedly, contingent upon prior propositions and not fully independent. Nevertheless the CLAIM regarding the “consensus” is that “97% agree, (1 thru 3)” and use that to assert without proof that all the rest (4 thru 20 or so) are also agreed upon. As if 97% of researchers are even qualified to issue a meaningful and precise determination on factors as diverse as economic impacts, epidemiology, sea level, polar ecology, etc.
We are asked to accept that 97% of “scientists” agree that Linda has rolled a nine, drawn a spade, flipped a “heads”, won a “scratch-off”, gotten a parking ticket, had the flu, likes vanilla ice cream, stocks her spice rack with cilantro, owns an Apple device, drives an American-made automobile … Any given part of the entire claim may be utterly plausible, but the entire package is EXTRAORDINARILY unlikely.
Tversky, not Tawersky, only failed to share the Nobel prize for economics (is that a proper Nobel?) with Kahneman because he had died some years before. But I liked pouncer’s analysis.
The economics is not a proper Nobel Prize – as you probably knew.
“Climate change refers to a statistically significant variation in … climate … variability…”
How can you define something as itself AND it’s anti-derivative?
Err I mean itself and its derivative.
Sorry, should have written Tversky not Taversky!
An interesting article, but of course, the starting point is to fully understand what Climate actually is and this is where the IPCC goes off-rail in both its definitions.
In short, Climate is made up of a number of variable parameters 9temperature is but one of many different parameters), which variables are never in stasis and are constantly in flux meandering between the bounds of natural variability for each of these variables. The variables themselves are not wholly independent of one another, some are, but many are not such that a variation in one parameter may force a change in another.
The problem is assessing over what time period one should assess what Climate is, and this depends upon underlying natural cycles that may exist in causing the one or more than one parameter to change over time. thus the impact of oceanic cycles must certainly be taken into account and that alone suggests that Climate should be considered over a timeframe not less than about 60 years, But in addition, there are longer cycles that appear to exist, since there is strong evidence of a 1000 year cycle. All this suggests that Climate should be viewed on not less than a centennial basis and possibly on a millennial basis. there is a strong argument to support the view that the MWP and the LIA for the bounds of natural variability especially since during the MWP there was much year to year variability, and it was not that every year was warm and dry. Likewise in the LIA, there was much year to year variability, and not every year was cold, icy and snowy.
Climate is not something to be assessed over a period as short as 30 years, Further, Climate is not simply temperature, and to equate changes in temperature as changes in Climate is erroneous, although substantial changes in temperature could bring with it changes in Climate.
Further since the parameters making up the Climate in any one region are never in stasis and are in constant flux, it follows that a change in one or more parameter is not of and in itself Climate change; indeed, not even evidence of Climate change. Change is simply what Climate is, and what Climate does.
It is only when one or more parameter exceeds the bounds of natural variability and exceeds the bound for a protracted period of time, that there is evidence of Climate change, and indeed depending on the extent to which the bound has been breached, actual and real Climate change.
As far as i am aware, no country has crossed from its original Koppen definition to another climate regime. Presently notwithstanding the small rise in temperatures seen this past century, we have not yet witnessed any Climate change.
One of the first things I learned in my high school geometry class was the importance of the agreement on exact and explicit definitions for all terms involved in the discussion.
Unless all parties involved can agree on the exact meaning of each term, equivocations become inevitable.
Equivocation is the source of all ‘apples vs oranges’ conundrums in any debate. All arguments are invalidated when the equivocation is exposed.
The HAD 4 data shows just 0.8 C warming since 1850 and the Concordia Uni study calculates just 0.7 C since 1800. And this comes at the end of the LIA. So what would you expect?
http://berc.berkeley.edu/ranking-global-warming-contributions-by-country/
Bob Tisdale: ” I am not a scientist, I have no clue what I am talking about, but here is my personally biased opinion that is clearly slanted by my politics and my financial supporters.”
Case in point, Bob said this back in 2009: “El Nino Events Are Not Getting Stronger”, which I copied directly from his posting here: http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/09/el-nino-events-are-not-getting-stronger.html
As Bob posts his latest deflection argument here so that all his closest followers will be kept from knowing what the actual data is doing today, this is what Bob wants everyone here to ignore: https://twitter.com/ggweather/status/666281247698583552/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc^tfw
It appears that the latest El Nino data has just exceeded the natural variability upper limit that has been set for over the past 145 years and highlighted in his 2009 posting, something that that he so strongly pushing here that is not supposed to be happening despite his strongly worded opinions.
Bob didn’t expect this back in 2009 because he is not a scientist. He has no scientific answers for why this is occurring despite his strongly worded opinion he posted back in 2009 and what he is still pushing today. So the best thing he can do now is create this deflection argument like his current posting you see here. None of this surprises me, I know Bob and what his true motives are. Sell more books on psuedo-science.
Well according to you plot, it is only a little higher than the 1997/8 Super El Nino, but what makes you think that the temperature curve of the 1997/8 El Nino represents the upper natural bounds of natural variability in a naturally occurring event such as an El Nino?
I think that it is premature to call the present El Nino. Obviously the current El Nino is a strong El Nino, but the question that needs to be answered is whether there will a long lasting atmospheric step change in temperature coincident upon the 2015/16 El Nino as there was a step change in temperatures coincident upon the Super El Nino of 1997/8. We do not know that yet.
We need to wait and see how temperatures spike, and whether this is just a short lived blip which a following La Nina will cancel out, and whereafter whether the conditions then ensuing mean that temperatures will once again hover around the 2001 to 2003 anomaly level. IF (and this is only an IF) this is what happens then coming into 2019, the ‘pause’ will not simply still be entact, it will have lengethened to over 21 years.
of course, it may that coincident with the 2015/16 strong El Nino there is a similar long lasting step change in temperatures just as was coincident upon the 1997/8 Super El Nino. IF that happens whilst this may simply be coincidence and not causative correlation, then there will be a better case for arguing that natural events such as El Nino can drive upwards the temperature on planet Earth. But of course, one must appreciate that these natural events (El Ninos) are not driven by CO2; it is not one of the basic physical properties of CO2 that it drives El Ninos. There has been no laboratory experiment showing that that is what CO2 does as matter of course due to its basic physics.
As I say, it is far too early to see what lies in store and how the 2015/16 El Nino will unfold and in particularly whether there will be another step change in temperature coincident with the current El Nino.
Thank god your on duty Dennis. What would the rest of us yokels do without your all knowing foresight.
Climatism is a lasagne of improper methods, arbitrary statistical treatments, lack of validation, data hiding, data tampering, poor or no epistemology, manipulation of the system, word plays, cheating, politisation, intimidation…
Every time I think I have seen the worst climatism can produce, I discover another level of obstruction.
If you think you understand every trick a “scientist” or any clown with a PhD can throw at you, think again.
See something, say something, listen to “something”. If you see something and don’t hear “something”, then assume lots of stuff are bad.
The system should be self correcting.
If you see some bad apples, assume all apples are bad. No way out.
[1] Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings, or to persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use.
[2] “climate change” as: “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere —”. The UNFCCC thus makes a distinction between “climate change” attributable to human activities altering the atmospheric composition, and “climate variability” attributable to natural causes.
under external forcings: In the first definition IPCC differentiated between anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere from land use. In the second IPCC used human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere. — in the first used simply atmosphere and in the second it used global atmosphere. In the first used or in land use [ecological changes] was differentiated from anthropogenic [meaning new additions of greenhouse gas]; in second he used human activity but before it, they used directly or indirectly may be referring greenhouse gases from ecological changes, to create confusion.
All these are clearly defined by WMO in 1966. IPCC to meet its global warming and carbon credit policy, itcreating confusion.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
“…when in reality those scientists still can’t differentiate between natural and anthropogenic climate change.”
During relatively recent times the climate changed from the 1850’s to the 1950’s without much anthropogenic influence. We don’t know specifically all of the natural causes of this change. Even so, some scientists say that most of those natural changes somehow naturally stopped while since 1950 the anthropogenic activities (mainly burning of fossil fuels) have now dominated the change.
If one doesn’t know for sure what those natural causes were from 1850 to 1950, then how can they determine that they aren’t the primary drivers since 1950?
Of course, the answer is: one can not.
Yet they do and not enough “climate scientists” are willing to come forth and challenge this basic assumption.
@ “We know that weather is chaotic….”. Really? Weather is about physic dynamic! And discussing ‘climate change’ requires the fundamental observation that a “change” can only be explained if it said what to change, but science is not able to define climate in the first place, but merely picking up a layman’s term used since the stone age, very convincingly discussed at: http://www.whatisclimate.com/
One should not speak about “weather is chaotic”, but that the physics of weather is too little understood.
Looks one or more of the writers for “The Storm Channel” is freelancing.
Bob, this may be one of your most important posts to date.
Thank you for stating so well something that has been troubling me and others for some time.
So-called “climate change” is an undefined and undefinable crisis that excuses everything and justifies anything those who claim control of the issue want it to.
Fighting “Climate change” is an intellectually empty concept and damages ethics, industry, the environment, wastes resources and solves nothing.